High Emotional Intelligence: Family Psychosocial Factors

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 609 – 617 Future Academy®’s Multidisciplinary Conference High emotional intelligence: family psychosocial factors Rosita Lekavicienea,*, & Dalia Antinieneb a Department of Phylosophy and Psychology, Kaunas University of Technology, A. Mickeviciaus str. 37, Kaunas, Lithuania b Department of Health Psychology, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, A. Mickeviciaus str. 9, Kaunas, Lithuania Abstract Since a family plays a significant role in the development of a personality in the childhood, it is very important to find out, what are the exact social and psychological family factors that are the most essential for the development of emotional intelligence (EI). In the study, data from 1,430 subjects was collected in various regions of Lithuania. The average subject age was 19.7 years (SD=3.29). 43.2 per cent men and 55.5 per cent women (1.3 per cent of participants have not specified their gender) participated in the research. The majority of subjects were high school (56.7 per cent) and university (35.2 per cent) students. EI-DARL methodology (Antiniene & Lekaviciene, 2014) was used to assess EI. It was established that EI level is statistically significantly related to some family factors: psychological climate in the family, strength of subject relations with their mother/ father, subjective perception of family financial status, etc. © by Elsevier Ltd. by This is an open © 2016 2016Published The Authors. Published Elsevier Ltd.access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Future Academy® Cognitive Trading. Peer-review under responsibility of Future Academy® Cognitive Trading Keywords: emotional intelligence; family demographic factors; family psychosocial factors. 1. Introduction As family plays an important role in a child’s mind and personality development in childhood, it is important to determine what specific social and psychological family factors are the most important for the development of EI. The importance of emotional ties between parents and children is proven by many studies. E.g., researchers confirm that there is a relation between parent capability to control emotions and such ability development in children (Cumberland-Li, Eisenberg, Champion, Gershoff, & Fabes, 2003); that parent emotional intelligence has an impact * Rosita Lekaviciene. Tel.: +370 61645761 E-mail address: rosita.lekaviciene@ktu.lt 1877-0428 © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Future Academy® Cognitive Trading doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.066 610 Rosita Lekaviciene and Dalia Antiniene / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 609 – 617 on emotional development of children (Field & Kolbert, 2006; Marsland & Likavec, 2003); that parents who are sensitive to emotional needs of their children typically raise emotionally intelligent children (Salovey, Bedell, Detweiler, & Mayer, 2000). Various studies also show that not only an objective emotional link between parents and children is important, but also subjective assessment of the said link by the child himself or, from the time perspective, when the said child becomes an adult. In other words, relation between EI dimensions (perception, understanding and control of emotions) and subjectively perceived warmth of parents in the childhood is observed (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Saarni, 1997; Barber, Stolz, Olsen, Collins, & Burchinal, 2005; Ryan, Deci, Grolnick, & LaGuardia, 2006; Sillick & Schutte, 2006; Asghari & Besharat, 2011). Nastasa and Sala (2012) confirm that cold communication in the family negatively correlates with EI level. The adopted communication style in parent interaction with children may cause unbridled emotions of their child later. E.g., studies show that aggressiveness, inability to restrain, though most likely is determined by various factors, may be linked to the communication style in the family. Cleveland (2014) has established that aggressiveness of girls correlates with authoritarianism in the family, while EI and aggressiveness correlation is negative; the said two factors explain one fifth of social aggression cases. 12–19 year old teenager satisfaction with their parents study performed by Dabke (2014) showed that parents with higher EI are able to guarantee emotionally warmer climate in the family, which in its turn has an impact on children’s and teenagers’ EI development. In the analysis of links between various family factors and EI significantly less attention has been paid to the issue of the importance of family fullness to child’s successful emotional development. Studies of this kind are not numerous, e.g., studies of young people living in divorced or full families recently performed by Singh and Modi (2012) revealed that emotional intelligence was higher of those who live in full families. Researchers are also wondering whether greater family income may guarantee a more positive environment in the family and consequently better development of emotional skills. Empiric study performed by Nasir (2011) confirmed such relationship; positive correlation between emotional intelligence level of the subjects and financial well-being of their family has been established. There are more studies that confirm such results (Harrod & Scheer, 2005; Kaur & Jaswal, 2005; Özabaci, 2006). However, it should be noted that in some studies such correlations were not confirmed, e.g. Katyal and Awasthi (2006). As importance of various family factors is still being discussed and unambiguous conclusions have not yet been reached, it is important to continue this kind of research. The purpose of the presented article is to demonstrate how various family factors are related to the EI level of a person. Objectives of the study are: a. To assess relations between family status (i.e. with whom the subject presently lives: with parents, independently, married, with a girlfriend/friend, etc.) of the subject and the subject’s EI; b. To determine how the type of the family (i.e., a full family, with one of the parents, a foster home, etc.), in which the subject has grown up is related to the subject’s EI; c. To examine relationships between the prevailing emotional background of the internecine relations in the subject’s family and EI; d. To assess the importance of relationship with parents to the subject and the connection of the said factor with the EI of the subject; e. To determine the relation between the number of brothers/sisters of the subject, the succession of their birth and their EI f. To examine relations between the family financial status and subjects’ EI. 2. Method 2.1. Subjects A total of 1430 subjects were interviewed. The research involved young studying, employed people, also the unemployed, involved in various community and political organizations and even people sentenced to imprisonment. The target group – youth from 17 to 27 years of age, M=19,7, SD=3,29, N=1400. A control-contrast group of older than 27 years of age people (N=30) is included in the sample for data comparison and a better statistical dispersion of the characteristics. Participants in the survey consisted of 43.2 per cent men and 55.5 per cent women (1.3 per cent have not specified their gender). A total of 1092 subjects who at the time of the survey were studying were surveyed: secondary school and gymnasium students from forms 11-12 (N=371), professional Rosita Lekaviciene and Dalia Antiniene / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 609 – 617 school (N=384), college (N=158) and university (N=399) students. Others interviewed were the unemployed (N=15); young people sentenced in prisons (N=54), representatives of some unions and social movements: young liberals (N=11), scouts (N=7) and others. The study involved 236 young people with work experience: the majority of them (N=154) work in private companies, (N=55) state institutions, the rest are youth and sports organizations, are engaged in individual activities, farming, etc. 2.2. Instruments The survey questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part is dedicated to the assessment of the personality EI level applying EI-DARL methodology (Antinienė & Lekavičienė, 2014 a, 2014 b). As the said methodology is newly developed and relatively not well-known, we will present it in more detail. EI-DARL consists of three subtests: questionnaire, identification scale of face expressions, emotional-social and interpersonal situation scale: 1) a traditional questionnaire, where subjects reveal their degree of consent to the statements by evaluating them in the 6-step Likert scale. 73 test items were compacted into scales called “Perception of own emotions” (e.g. “Even when very nervous I understand perfectly what is going on with me”); “Control of own emotions”(e.g. “Sometimes I feel jealous but I do not show that”); “Perception of others’ emotions”(e.g. “If I feel that I hurt someone I feel hurt myself”), “Control of others’ emotions” relations (e.g. “I can cheer up people around me”) and “Manipulations”. The statements of the manipulation scale are aimed at deducing the person’s ability to control the behaviour of people around by using their emotions, discovering their weaknesses (e.g. “I am quite good at understanding other people’s feelings and sometimes use that to achieve my objectives”). The scale scores of manipulative behaviour, that reflects a person's ability to control the other person’s feelings, provide an opportunity to see a more detailed psychological portrait of the subject. The psychometric quality characteristics of the EI diagnostic construct were calculated: Cronbach-alpha coefficient values fluctuate from 0.73 to relatively high rates, i.e. 0.89; the average correlation between test items – from 0.29 to 0.49; the resolution rates of i/tt (Item-total-correlation ) – often exceed 0.5, which indicate that the test items quite accurately differentiate the subjects by their certain abilities; L – factorial loadings: the instrument is left with only those statements whose factorial loadings exceed (by 0.3) the overall explained dispersion of the factor fluctuates from 22 to 46 proc.; 6) KMO values range from 0.88 to 0.94. In conclusion, we can say that the psychometric quality of the instrument is sufficient. 2) The identification scale of facial expressions– subjects are given 20 pictures showing various emotional expressions; the subject has to select an answer from the four given choices. An example is shown in Fig. 1. • • • • Sadness Anger Pain Disgust • • • • Sneer Advertence Self-consciousness Flirtation • • • • Interest Pride Joy Surprise Fig.1. Examples of facial expression identification scale 3) The scale of emotional-social and interpersonal situations. In 10 typical situations the subject was asked to perform two tasks: firstly, to choose one best/most acceptable solution to the situation from possible solutions; afterwards it was asked to indicate the answer, which would best reflect how the subject would most likely act himself in reality. In other words, the sub-test of the situations lets us evaluate two things – if the subject is able to theoretically analyze and make the right decision, and if the theoretical understanding coincides with actual behaviour. The choice in situations is made from 4-8 response options. An example is shown in Fig. 2. 611 612 Rosita Lekaviciene and Dalia Antiniene / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 609 – 617 Parents are hosting a solemn New Year celebration at student Vidas’ house. Vidas knows some of them, yet others he sees for the first time. Mother’s remark about Vidas’ inappropriate manners at the table is made loudly during dinner. The remark is heard by everyone; Vidas is unsettled and feels humiliated. What should he do? 1) Do nothing despite the insult because it would be rude. 2) He could say that his mother does etiquette mistakes and in general no one now strictly stands upon etiquette. 3) Calmly say that such comments are in the wrong place and at wrong time, and that mother should not comment on his behaviour. And he will try to take into account the remark. 4) In order to relieve the pressure, he could deliberately start acting rude by making the guests laugh and delicately avenge to his mother for the discomfort. 5) Get up and leave the table – next time mother will think before saying remarks to him out loud. 6) Do nothing – just smile and continue eating. Vidas should not be disturbed by the comments, especially if they are correct. 7) After the guests leave Vidas should tell his mother that he felt uncomfortable by receiving a public comment and it would be better if she would have told the remarks to him quietly. 8) I do not know. The situation is the same. What would you do in reality if you found yourself in Vidas’ place? 1) I would do nothing despite the insult because it would be rude. 2) I would say that my mother does etiquette mistakes and in general no one now strictly stands upon etiquette. 3) Calmly say that such comments are in the wrong place and at wrong time, and that mom should not comment on my behaviour. And I will try to take into account the remark. 4) In order to relieve the pressure, I would deliberately start acting rude by making the guests laugh and delicately avenge to my mom for the discomfort. 5) Get up and leave the table – next time mother will think before saying remarks to me out loud. 6) Do nothing – just smile and continue eating. I am not disturbed by the comments, especially if they are correct. 7) After the guests leave I would like to talk to my mother about the incident. I would tell her that I felt uncomfortable by receiving a public comment and it would be better if she would have told the remarks to me quietly. 8) I do not know. Fig.2. An example of emotional-social and interpersonal situation scale In the second part of the questionnaire questions recording demographical and psychosocial characteristics of the subject: age, sex, marital status, socio-economic status, number of children, relations in the family, strength of ties with father/mother, etc. were presented. 3. Results and Discussion The performed study has revealed the correlation between the level of emotional intelligence of a person and various family factors. The correlations determined in our study in some cases confirm and in some cases contradict with the data presented in the scientific literature. To see if the EI subscale distributions are normal, we have examined the scales using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, which has shown, that the distributions are not normal, therefore nonparametric data analysis (Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 test) was applied in the research, selecting the level of significance to be p ≤ 0,05 Table 1. Kruskal-Wallis test results EI scale name Family factors The scale of emotional-social and interpersonal situations Present family status of a subject The control of your own emotions Mean rank Living with a spouse or partner// Living with parents 473,85// 388,53 Grew up in an foster home// Grew up with one of the parents 617,17// 426,25 Grew up with one of the parents // Grew up in an foster home 356,10// 51,88 Family type in childhood The identification scale of facial expressions Statistical dependence χ2 = 17,84 df=6 p≤ 0,05 χ2 = 9,65 df=4 p≤0,05 χ2 =9,55 df=4 p≤0.05 613 Rosita Lekaviciene and Dalia Antiniene / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 609 – 617 The scale of emotional-social and interpersonal situations Grew up with one of the parents // Grew up in an foster home 476,50// 63,00 χ2 =9,78 df=4 p≤0,05 The understanding of your own emotions There were/are warm relations in the family// There were/are more quarrels than normal relations 607,37// 478,33 χ2 =13,46 df=3 p≤0,01 The control of your own emotions There were/are warm relations in the family// There were/are more quarrels than normal relations 590,82// 471,63 χ2 =9,80 df=3 p≤0,05 The control of other emotions There were/are warm relations in the family It was/is not customary to demonstrate warm feelings – they simply (used to) get along 622,30// 557,09 χ2 =14,12 df=3 p≤0,01 The understanding of your own emotions Had/have strong emotional bonds with both parents// Had/have equally weak emotional bonds with both parents 627,60// 487,11 χ2 =13,08 df=3 p≤0,01 Had/have the strongest emotional bonds with the mother// Had/have equally weak emotional bonds with both parents 675,45// 511,87 χ2 =13,89 df=3 p≤0,01 Were only children// Were the youngest children in the family 648,30// 579,12 χ2 =9,32 df=5 p≤0,05 533,21// 405,10 χ2 =21,46 df=4 p≤0,0001 672,83// 544,35 χ2 =10,54 df=4 p≤0,0001 688,94// 410,61 χ2 =21,25 df=4 p≤0,0001 Relations in the family Emotional importance of parents for subjects (children) The control of other emotions Manipulations Birth succession of the subject (child) in a family Joint Emotional intelligence scale The understanding of your own emotions The understanding of other emotions Subjective estimation of own family financial status Somewhat better than that of the majority of Lithuanian people// Significantly worse than that of the majority of Lithuanian people Significantly better than that of the majority of Lithuanian people// Worse than that of the majority of Lithuanian people Somewhat better than that of the majority of Lithuanian people// Significantly worse than that of the majority of Lithuanian people The control of other emotions Significantly better than that of the majority of Lithuanian people// Significantly worse than that of the majority of Lithuanian people 708,07// 503,13 χ2 =17,58 df=4 p≤0,001 Manipulations Somewhat better than that of the majority of Lithuanian people// The same as for the majority of Lithuanians 719,63// 601,21 χ2 =25,36 df=4 p≤0,0001 The scale of emotional-social and interpersonal situations Worse than that of the majority of Lithuanian people// Significantly worse than that of the majority of Lithuanian people 437,45// 138,83 χ2 =16,71 df=4 p≤0,01 First of all, it was checked whether status of the family, in which presently the subject lives, is important, i.e. is he or she living with parents, with a spouse, independently, with a girlfriend/friend and whether it is related to EI. It has been established that neither in the combined scale (by all five subscales), nor in individual subscales statistically significant differences between EI level and family status were found. However, correlation between family status and ability to solve emotional-social and interpersonal situations was observed: using Kruskal-Wallis criterion it was determined that such situations are handled most poorly by those subjects who live with their parents 614 Rosita Lekaviciene and Dalia Antiniene / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 609 – 617 (Mean rank = 388.53) and most successfully by those subjects who live with a spouse or with a partner (Mean rank = 473.85). Such data most likely can be explained by the fact that a young person that lives with parents is inclined to automatically absorb the “understanding of the world” model, which has been formed in the family, it is also likely that in the family more spontaneous emotional reactions (including negative) may be found, whereas those who live with a spouse/partner are forced to more often adjust their different “understanding of the world” that they have brought from their families, analyze complicated social situations and seek consensus to maintain positive relations. Analogous research conclusions are presented by Fallahzadeh (2011): after an assessment of correlations between student residence and EI it was established that students who lived separately or in a student dormitory were distinguished by higher overall EI then those who lived at home with their parents. Only a few statistically significant correlations between EI indicators and the fullness of a family, which the person grew up in, were observed. However, it is interesting to note that the control of one’s own emotions is most typical for young people who grew up in foster homes (Mean rank = 617.17) – most likely, this is related to formal and strict rules and sanctions, which usually are not so often or never applied in family environment. Those who lived with one of the parents are the least capable of controlling their own emotions (Mean rank = 426.25). However, those who grew up with one of the parents were the best at recognizing facial emotional expressions (Mean rank = 356.10) as well as the best at solving emotion-related social situations (Mean rank = 476.50), whereas foster home residents obtained the poorest scores: Mean rank = 51.88 in the first assignment and Mean rank = 63.00 in the second assignment. It is likely that poorer social experience and more numerous obligatory rules of foster homes have a negative impact when a young person has to find an answer in a complicated, emotion related social situation. Personality development in one parent family also has its own particularity: here a maturing person is faced with more challenges than the one whose both parents take care of the young person’s maturity. On the other hand, contradictory results may be found in scientific literature, e.g., Singh and Modi (2012) surveyed 100 young people of the age 18 to 22 living in divorced and two-parent families and obtained that higher EI was of those subjects who came from two-parent families. Methods of child raising in the family and children’s/young people’s subjective perception and evaluation of the said raising are important social factors for EI development. The study described in this article has revealed significant correlations between warm relations in the family and better self-cognition, i.e., such subjects are capable to better understand and control their own emotions (the scored statement was “there are/ there were plentiful warm feelings in the family”, Mean rank = 607,37). The said subjects are also capable of better influencing and controlling emotions of people that are by their side (Mean rank = 590,82). And contrarily, those who grew up in quarreling families (statement “we more often were at odds with each other than maintained normal relations” was scored) have the poorest ability to recognize (Mean rank = 478,33) and control (Mean rank = 471,63) their own emotions. It is interesting to note that those who considered their family life to be “normal” (statement “it was not/is not customary to demonstrate warm feelings – we just used to normally get along” was scored) have the poorest ability to control emotions of other people (Mean rank = 557,09). Meanwhile, people whose families were abundant in warm emotions are the strongest in this regard (Mean rank = 622,30). The said results allow to make an assumption that in the early phases of development – in childhood and adolescence – emotion identification and control are learned in the family: in quiet and warm family environment the said process is smooth, whereas in a stressful environment, when constant spites are experienced, this process is unsettled. The study has revealed that “emotion learning” process is also at disarray in a family that does not demonstrate emotions: a developing personality in such a family, as well as in arguing family, does not have a possibility to “practice”, however in the arguing family abundant negative emotions and stressful environment may embed inadequate, stereotypical, fear conditioned or other response forms. Studies performed in various countries show that there exists a correlation between such EI dimensions as perception, understanding, and control of emotions, on one hand, and subjectively perceived in the childhood warmth of parents, on the other (r values fluctuated within the range of 0.15 to 0.23, the survey was performed using MEIS methodology (Ciarrochi et al., 2000). Existence of such correlation was also confirmed in studies of Saarni (1997), Barber et al. (2005), Ryan et al. (2006) as well as Sillick and Schutte (2006). Having conducted comparative studies with 352 students (142 young men and 210 young women average age – 18.39 years) Asghari and Besharat (2011) confirmed that warmth of parents, especially in the childhood, is an important factor for EI development. Nastasa and Sala (2012) maintain that cool relations in the family using authoritarian or dictatorial style negatively correlate with EI level (correspondingly r = -0,254, p ≤ 0,05 ir r = -0,429, p ≤ 0,01). Therefore, parents who apply dictatorial or authoritarian style shape inflexible children and teenagers who need clear rules to feel well, who do not take Rosita Lekaviciene and Dalia Antiniene / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 609 – 617 615 responsibility for their emotions, but blame and criticize others for not thinking about other people’s feelings, etc.; parents who apply democratic style encourage EI development of teenagers. Trying to determine, which of the parents – mother/father/both parents – is emotionally more important to a child with respect to EI development, it was determined that those subjects that had strong emotional relations with both parents are more capable of understanding their own emotions (Mean rank =627.60), and the worst score was of those who had equally weak emotional relations with both parents (Mean rank = 487,11). Those subjects who had strongest emotional relations with their mother have the best ability to control emotions of other people (Mean rank = 675.45), the poorest ability is of those who had weak relations with both parents (Mean rank = 511,87). Research of other scientists produce ambiguous results, e.g., in Bracket, Mayer, and Warner (2004) studies statistically significant correlations were not determined, whereas such correlations are indicated in some other studies: Asghari and Besharat (2011) showed that there is a significant difference in some subscale (mother involvement, mother warmth and father warmth) scores of young men and young women, e.g., 8.3 per cent of dispersion related to EI is explained by mother warmth towards girls (R2 = 0.083) and 17.4 per cent in the case of young men (R2 = 0.174). Our study has negated that number of brothers/ sisters and birth succession are important for EI level. However, a rather interesting fact has emerged: those who were the only child in the family tend to be the greatest manipulators (Mean rank = 648.30), whereas the youngest children in the family are the least manipulative of surrounding people (Mean rank = 579.12). It is likely that manipulative behavior of the only child in the family may be related to upbringing errors and established egocentric attitude towards his or her environment, whereas being the youngest (therefore, quite often and easily getting everything, but at the same time being capable of sharing) child in the family does not encourage to use competition strategy, and manipulative behavior is not acquired because it simply is not necessary. Correlations between subjective estimation of one’s own family financial status and EI level have been determined. Emotional intelligence (combined EI scale) is higher of those subjects who consider their own financial status as being somewhat better that that of others (Mean rank = 533,21), and the lowest – of those subjects who consider their own financial status as being significantly worse than that of others (Mean rank = 405,10). Those who think that their well-being is considerably higher than that of others are the best at understanding their own emotions (Mean rank =672,82), the worst in this regard are those who think that they live worse than others (Mean rank =544,35). Those who consider their own life to be a little better than that of others are the best at understanding other people’s emotions (Mean rank = 688,94, and those who think that their financial status is significantly better than that of others are the best at controlling emotions of surrounding people (Mean rank = 708,07. In both cases – in understanding and controlling emotions of other people – the poorest scores were of individuals who view their own situation as significantly worse than that of others (Mean rank =410,61), (Mean rank =503,13). Manipulations are the most characteristic for people who think that they live somewhat better than others (Mean rank = 719,63) and the least characteristic for those who believe that they live as the majority (Mean rank = 601,21). In summary, it may be maintained that correlation between EI scales and subjective valuation of own financial status does exist; higher EI is clearly associated with more positive assessment of one’s own financial status, lower – with poor assessment. Studies of this type are not numerous in literature, but results mentioned there are analogous to the ones obtained by us, e.g., positive correlation between emotional intelligence of subjects and income of the family that they come from has been determined (Harrod & Scheer, 2005; Kaur & Jaswal, 2005; Özabaci, 2006; Nasir, 2011). Furthermore, results of many in some sense analogous studies match with the said results confirming positive correlation between subjectively experienced well-being and EI, e.g., MSCEIT combined scale in various studies correlates with the said positive psychological well-being from r = 0.16 to r = 0.28 (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Bracket, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006); in various studies, MEIS combined EI scale correlates with satisfaction with life from r = 0.11 to r = 0.28 (Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999). And conversely, negative correlations are obtained while investigating links between EI and depressiveness, anxiety, strain, frightfulness (from r = – 0.42 to r = – 0.16; Carton, Kessler, & Pape, 1999; Bastian, Burns, & Nettelbeck, 2005; Matthews et al., 2006). It has also developed that the solution of emotional situations depends on the person’s opinion about his or her financial status. However, in this case such situations are best solved by individuals who think that they are not as well-off as others (Mean rank = 437.45), and the worst solvers are those who think that they live significantly worse than others (Mean rank = 138.83). Such results may be related to the fact that a person who considers his or her situation to be worse than average is forced to look for a way out, to more carefully analyze the social environment and sooner learn adequate behavior in social situations. Whereas those who see their own financial status as 616 Rosita Lekaviciene and Dalia Antiniene / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 609 – 617 significantly worse than that of others quite often are prone to negative moods, depressiveness and likewise have less adequate perception and assessment of environment as well as acceptance of such situations. 4. Conclusions 1. The study has revealed that family status of a person (i.e., with whom the subject currently lives: with parents, independently, in matrimony, with a girlfriend/friend, etc.) and major dimensions describing EI – understanding and control of own and other people’s emotions, ability to manipulate – are not related parameters. However, family status has significant impact on the ability to solve emotional social and interpersonal situations: such situations are best solved by those who live in matrimony or with a girlfriend/friend. The poorest solvers of such situations are those who live with their parents. 2. Fullness of the family, which the person grew up in and level of emotional intelligence (according to the combined EI score) of the person are not related. However, correlations were determined by some EI dimensions: control of one’s own emotions is most typical for young people who grew up in foster homes, while those who grew up with one of the parents have the biggest difficulty in implementing the said control. On the other hand, these young people are the best at identification of emotion-related social and interpersonal situations, whereas young people raised at foster homes are the poorest at such identification. 3. Psychological climate in the family is important for the emotional intelligence level. In those families where warm feelings dominate among their members, own emotion understanding and control is the best. Ability to control emotions of other people is also related to good relationships experienced in the family, but the poorest at controlling emotions of other people are those who see their own family life as “normal”. Subjects who grew up in families where arguments were frequent are the poorest at understanding and controlling their own emotions; they also are the best manipulators capable of using weaknesses of people around them; the poorest manipulators are subjects raised in families where relations are exceptionally good and warm mutual feelings prevail. 4. The results of the study confirmed the importance of strong emotional ties between the subject and his or her mother/father: those who had strong emotional ties with their mother are the best at controlling emotions of other people. Those who had strong emotional ties with both parents are the best at understanding their own emotions, those who had equally poor emotional relationships with both parents are the worst at understanding their own emotions. 5. The study has revealed that succession of birth in the family and the number of brothers/sisters are insignificant factors to EI. However, it turned out that the only children in the family are the biggest manipulators, whereas the youngest children in the family are the least of all inclined to manipulate surrounding people. 6. Subjective perception of the financial status of one’s family is related to the emotional intelligence level. The combined EI score is higher of those subjects who view their own financial status as somewhat better than that of others; the lowest EI is of those subjects who regard their own financial status as significantly worse than that of surrounding people. Manipulations are the most characteristic for people who think that their financial status is somewhat better than that of other people; people who think that they live as the majority are the least inclined to manipulate. Acknowledgments The study was supported by Research Council of Lithuania (Contract # Nr. MIP-106/2012). References Antinienė, D., & Lekavičienė, R. (2014a). Design characteristics of the short version EI-DARL-V1 of original emotional intelligence measurement technique. Education. Physical training. Sport : Baltic Journal of Sport and Health Sciences, 1, 9-15. Antinienė, D., & Lekavičienė, R. (2014 b). The construction principles and problems of the long version EI-DARL-V2 original measurement methodology of emotional intelligence. Social Sciences, 2(84), 69-80. Asghari, M. S., & Besharat, M. A. (2011). The relation of perceived parenting with emotional intelligence. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 231–235. Barber, B. K., Stolz, H. E., Olsen, J. A., Collins, W. A., & Burchinal, M. (2005). Parental support, psychological control, and behavioral control: assessing relevance across time, culture, and method. Boston: Blackwell. Rosita Lekaviciene and Dalia Antiniene / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 609 – 617 Bastian, V.A., Burns, N. R., & Nettelbeck, T. (2005). Emotional intelligence predicts life skills, but not as well as personality and cognitive abilities. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(6), 1135–1145. Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147-1158. Brackett, M., Mayer, J.D., & Warner, R.M. (2004). Emotional intelligence and the prediction of behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1387–402. Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: a comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 780–795. Carton, J. S., Kessler, E. A, & Pape, C. L. (1999). Nonverbal decoding skills and relationship well-being in adults. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23(1), 91–100. Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(3), 539–561. Cumberland-Li, A., Eisenberg, N., Champion, C., Gershoff, E., & Fabes, R. A. (2003). The relation of parental emotionality and related dispositional traits to parental expression of emotion and children’s social functioning. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 27–56. Fallahzadeh, H. (2011). The relationship between emotional intelligence and academic achievement in medical science students in Iran. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1461–1466. Field, J., & Kolbert, J. (2006). Enhancing emotional intelligence in parents: The professional school counselor’s role. In J. Pellitteri, R. Stern, C. Shelton, & B. Muller-Ackerman (Eds.), Emotionally intelligent school counselling (167–181). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Harrod, N. R., & Scheer, S. D. (2005). An explanation of adolescent emotional intelligence in relation to demographic characteristics. Adolescence, 40 (159), 503-512. Katyal, A., & Awasthi, E. (2006). Effect of personal and family characteristics on emotional intelligence among adolescents. Pakistan Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 4 (1-2), 1-20. Kaur, R., & Jaswal, S. (2005). Relationship between Strategic Emotional Intelligence and Family Climate of Punjabi Adolescents. Anthropologist, 7(4), 293-298. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267–298. Marsland, K. W., & Likavec, S. C. (2003). Maternal emotional intelligence, infant attachment and child socio-emotional competence. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Society, Atlanta, GA. Matthews, G., Emo, A. K., Funke, G., Zeidner M, Roberts R. D., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (2006). Emotional intelligence, personality, and task-induced stress. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 96–107. Nasir, M. (2011). Correlation of emotional intelligence with demographic characteristics, academic achievement and cultural adjustment of the students of IIUI. Department of education faculty of social sciences international Islamic university Islamabad. Retrieved 11. 11. 2013, http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Thesis/1088S.pdf#page=259&zoom=auto,0,277 Nastasa, L.-E., & Sala, K. (2012). Adolescents’ emotional intelligence and parental styles. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33, 478– 482. Özabaci, N. (2006). Emotional Intelligence and Family Environment. Retrieved 10. 10. 2013, http://yordam.manas.kg/ekitap/pdf/Manasdergi/sbd/sbd16/sbd-16-12.pdf Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., Grolnick, W. S., & LaGuardia, J. G. (2006). The significance of autonomy and autonomy support in psychological development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.). Developmental psychopathology: theory and method, 2nd ed. (pp.795–849). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Saarni, C. (1997). Emotional competence and self-regulation in childhood. In P. Salovey, & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: educational implications (pp. 35-69). New York: Basic Books. Salovey, P., Bedell, B., Detweiler, J. B., & Mayer, J. D. (2000). Current directions in emotional intelligence research. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed.) (pp. 504–520). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Sillick, T. J., & Schutte, N. S. (2006). Emotional intelligence and self-esteem mediate between perceived early parental love and adult happiness. Emotional Intelligence, 2(2), 38–48. Singh, A., & Modi, R. (2012). Impact of Nuclear and Joint Family on Emotional Intelligence among Adolescents. 2nd Indian Psychological Science Congress, Chandigard, 181. 617